APPENDIX P 

SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY AND 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION MATERIALS

 Summary Report Summary Report 

Public Scoping Meetings Public Scoping Meetings 

July 2006 July 2006 

 

Prepared by: CirclePoint 

 October 2006 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\TOC.doc 

i 

Table of Contents 

1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 

1.2 KEY ISSUES SUMMARY ............................................................................3 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 Registration Sheets 

Appendix 2 Meeting Materials 

Appendix 3 Exhibit Boards 

Appendix 4 Federal Register Notice of Intent 

Appendix 5 Proofs of Publication 

Appendix 6 Public Information Mailer 

Appendix 7 Comments 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

C i r c l e P o i n t 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\TOC v1.doc

ii 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment 

Dispostion.doc 

1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The DesertXpress High Speed Train is a privately funded project being proposed by 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC. The proposed project consists of a fully grade-separated, 

double-track, passenger-only railroad extending approximately 200 miles, from 

Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada. The proposed project includes two passenger 

stations—one in Victorville and one in Las Vegas. An additional station in Barstow will be 

evaluated as a result of comments received during the scoping process. The Victorville 

station would be located between the two existing Stoddard Wells interchanges. Three 

potential locations are currently being considered for the Las Vegas station, which would 

include a light maintenance, cleaning and inspection facility nearby. The project also 

includes the construction of maintenance, storage, and operations facilities at a site within 

the Victorville Valley Economic Development Area, near the Victorville Station. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) initiated the formal scoping process by 

publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006. The FRA is the lead agency for the project under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and will be preparing the EIS. The 

Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are Cooperating Agencies under NEPA, and are 

participating with the FRA in preparing the EIS. 

Three public scoping meetings were held as part of the public scoping process: 

Las Vegas Barstow Victorville 

The White House Ramada Inn San Bernardino County Fair Grounds 

3260 Joe Brown Drive 1571 E Main Street 14800 Seventh Street, Building 3 

July 25, 2006 July 26, 2006 July 26, 2006 

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 

These meetings provided an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the 

scope of environmental topics that will be analyzed in the EIS. 

Approximately 60 people attended the Public Scoping Meetings, not including Project 

team members. Meeting attendees were asked to register at the meeting so that a project 

mailing list could be created; this mailing list will be used by the FRA to update the public 

and agencies on subsequent public involvement opportunities (including meetings) and to 

disseminate additional information on the proposed project. (Registration Sheets are 

included in Appendix 1.) Once registered, attendees received the following meeting 

materials (copies of these documents are provided in Appendix 2): 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment 

Dispostion.doc 

2 

 Meeting Handout describing the purpose of the Scoping Meeting and providing 

the meeting agenda. 

 Surface Transportation Board Brochure outlining STB’s environmental 

review process for new line construction projects. 

 Project Location Map showing the proposed project alternatives. 

 Project Informational Mailer discussing the project components, project 

purpose and need, and public scoping process. 

 Comment Sheet for attendees to submit comments. 

FRA and contractor staff presented the purpose and need for the proposed project, 

described the environmental studies to be conducted, and requested participation in 

determining the scope of environmental review. Representatives of DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC also provided information on the proposed project. Once the 

presentation concluded, attendees were encouraged to view the various exhibits that were 

placed around the room, and to direct questions to representatives of FRA or 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC. Freestanding exhibit boards were placed throughout the 

meeting area for participants to review. (Copies of the exhibit boards are included in 

Appendix 3.) Large aerial maps depicting the proposed project alignment were also 

presented at each scoping meeting. 

FORMAL SCOPING MEETING NOTIFICATION

Federal Register/Notice of Intent 

A NOI was printed in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006 (see copy of NOI in Appendix 

4). 

Newspaper 

Notices to the public were published in local newspapers. Notices describing the proposed 

project and listing the dates and locations of the scoping meetings were printed in the 

Daily Press and the Las Vegas Sun/Las Vegas Review Journal (July 14 and July 23, 2006) 

and in the Desert Dispatch (July 14 and July 22, 2006). Appendix 5 contains the proof of 

publication in these newspapers. 

Mailing 

The FRA sent notification mailers to approximately 2,500 individuals on the project 

mailing list (including property owners within 500 feet of the proposed rail alignments). 

The notice provided information on the Public Scoping Meetings and briefly described the 

proposed elements of the project. The notice also included details on how and where to 

submit formal comments on the project. Appendix 6 contains a copy of the Project 

Information Notice. 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment 

Dispostion.doc 

3 

Hotline 

A telephone hotline was also established to provide a contact in advance of the Public 

Scoping Meetings. The hotline was operational from June 19th through October 23, 2006. 

1.2 KEY ISSUES SUMMARY 

METHOD OF RECEIVING COMMENTS

Public Scoping Meeting attendees were asked to submit their completed comment sheets 

at the meeting attended, or to mail the sheets (by August 15, 2006) to 455 Capitol Mall, 

Suite 305, Sacramento, California. Approximately 24 comment letters were received from 

meeting attendees. In addition to the comment sheets, 12 letters were received by the FRA 

at 1120 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20590. No comments were received via the 

project hotline; however, one meeting participant called the hotline to request additional 

project information. Appendix 7 contains copies of all comments received on the project. 

COMMENTS SUMMARY AND DISPOSITION 

This section summarizes the comments received during the scoping process for the 

proposed project and the disposition of those comments. Written comments from the 

public were generally favorable, although some concerns were raised about the siting of 

the alignments. 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

4 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

Air Quality 

A modern rail system that reduces diesel emissions should be implemented. 

The EIS will analyze air pollutant emissions from the Apof train and include appropriate mitigation measures to r

pollutant emissions impacts. 

More detailed analysis should be included on air quality impacts and benefits with respect to regional air quality and transportation plans. 

The EIS will evaluate the potential mode shift within the resulting air quality benefits. 

A full range of technologies for powering the train system and analyzing the air quality alternatives should be discussed. 

The EIS will analyze air pollutant emissions from the Apof train and include appropriate mitigation measures to r

pollutant emissions impacts. 

The general conformity determination with related mitigation commitments should be included. FRA and DesertXpress should work with Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board, Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to ensure that anticipated emissions from the project are consistent with applicable Air Quality Management Plans. 

The EIS analysis will include a general conformity analy

determination will discuss the project’s consistency with Management Plans. 

Close coordination should be conducted with air quality agencies to ensure that emissions from both construction and operation phases conform to State Implementation Plans. 

The EIS analysis will include a general conformity analy

operation phases with applicable State Implementation has met with the US EPA and will consult with air quality incorporate measures and design the project to avoid or air quality. 

A Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan for dust and diesel particulate matter should be included. 

The analysis will consider a Construction Emissions Mit

Alternatives 

Maglev and conventional rail alternatives were advocated by several commentors. 

Maglev is a different proposal and is not the subject of tinclude analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed project.

The alternative analysis and the lack of other viable transportation alternatives in the scoping/environmental review process should be explained. 

The EIS will analyze a reasonable range of alternatives 

proposed project and explain the selection process.

The interrelationship and potential overlap of the proposed alternatives and technology with other high-speed rail proposals in the area should be explored. 

The EIS will describe other reasonably foreseeable projand evaluate the project’s cumulative effects. 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

5 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

A steel-wheel-on-rail system should be compared with an electromagnetic system. 

See prior response. 

Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. 

The EIS will evaluate the resources along each alignme

alternatives to avoid significant impacts that may be iden

The first passenger station should be located in San Bernardino rather than Victorville. 

The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the Applicant’s pro

alternatives. The EIS will address the potential for futurconnections/extensions. 

Barstow attendees requested consideration of a passenger station located in Barstow. 

A potential passenger station in Barstow has been adde

description. 

Any future plans to extend the DesertXpress line over the Cajon Pass into the Los Angeles basin or to connect with other future transport options should be disclosed. 

The purpose of the EIS is to study the Applicant’s propo

address the potential for future connections/extensions. 

The side of the I-15 is a preferable right-of-way, as use of the median may add cost to future highway expansion. 

Both a side-running and a median-running alignment wi

EIS. 

Biology and Biological Resources 

A protection plan for local vegetation should be prepared, specifically for the white margined beardtongue. 

The EIS will evaluate potential impacts to white margineinclude mitigation measures as appropriate. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and other State-listed species should be considered, and mitigation measures should be included in the EIS. 

Analysis for biological resources will include field surveymitigation measures for all designated sensitive species

Applicant should engage in early consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, as modification of the project may be required to reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. 

The applicant has been engaged in on-going consultatioagencies to design the project to avoid or minimize imparesources. The FRA will also consult with resource age

preparation of the EIS. 

The EIS will address project fencings impacts to wildlife movement corridors. 

The EIS will include analysis of impacts to wildlife move

A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area should be included, with particular emphasis on the identification of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and sensitive habitats. 

Analysis for biological resources will include field surveymitigation measures for all designated sensitive species

analysis of potential impacts to flora and fauna along the 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

6 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources should be included, with specific measures to offset such impacts as described under CEQA guidelines. This would include an impact analysis relative to effects on off-site habitats: nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and wildlife corridor/movement areas. 

The EIS will analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative impmovement, and sensitive species and include mitigation or avoid significant impacts. Determination of the applicpending. 

Rare natural communities, as threatened habitats with regional and local significance, should be avoided. 

The EIS will analyze and include appropriate mitigation 

resources. 

Efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species and associated habitats should be described; this should include preserves, parks, and restoration and habitat management areas. Efforts to minimize or avoid impacts to resources should be presented, and specific resources avoided should be quantified. 

See prior response. 

The analysis should address avoidance of impacts to waters of the U.S. and adoption of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). 

The analysis will consider alternatives that reduce impacU.S. The EIS will evaluate waters of the U.S. and identi

A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit must be obtained if the project has the potential to result in “take” of species of plants or animals listed under CESA, both during construction and over the life of the project. 

The EIS will analyze effects to sensitive species and wilpermits. 

Possible conflicts with, and mitigation measures to reduce, wildlife/human interaction should be discussed. 

The EIS will analyze impacts to wildlife and habitat and measures, as necessary. 

Construction 

Potential disposal sites should be identified and the environmental effects associated with spoil disposal at each of the sites should be analyzed. 

The EIS will include consideration of all impacts from spmaterials disposal. 

The effects associated with the extensive truck traffic necessary to haul spoils to disposal sites should be discussed. This should include an estimate of truck trips; impacts to air quality, noise, and neighborhoods; and specific mitigation measures to reduce the estimated impacts. 

The EIS air quality, traffic, and noise analysis will asses

impacts of project-related truck trips; impacts to air qualuses and community cohesion. Mitigation measures wi

necessary. 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

7 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

Cumulative and Indirect Impacts 

A thorough cumulative impact assessment should be conducted. The assessment should analyze the impacts from all reasonably foreseeable developments associated with the project, including non-transportation projects (e.g., large-scale developments) and urban planning projects identified within city and county planning documents. An analysis should be included of the rate of loss of resources and magnitude (size and relative importance) of impacts to resources. 

The EIS will analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative imp

related development and will consider cumulative effectreasonably foreseeable developments in the planning a

Environmental Justice 

The area of potential impact used for the environmental justice impact analysis should be described and demographic information should be included. 

The EIS will analyze environmental justice impacts as re

laws, orders and regulations. 

Growth and Socioeconomics 

Concern was raised that a negative economic impact would occur in Barstow if the proposed project did not include a stop in Barstow. 

A potential passenger station in Barstow has been addedescription. 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

Specific surveys should be performed to determine the impacts on streambeds, both direct and indirect, that should be included in the EIS. 

The EIS will describe surveys and analysis of potential iand include appropriate mitigation measures. 

Information should be provided on interference with groundwater recharge and alteration of existing drainage patterns of the area, which could result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding, additional polluted runoff, or degradation of surface water or groundwater quantity or quality.

The environmental analysis will address changes to drastreambeds, flooding, and effects to groundwater recha

A discussion should be included on the impacts of the proposed land uses on hydrology and water quality, as the creation of impervious surface and alteration of existing drainage patterns may affect groundwater recharge. 

The EIS will analyze changes to drainage patterns and s

to groundwater recharge as required by the resource ag

Applicable portions of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) should be cited and discussed in the EIS. The FRA must comply with all applicable water quality standards and prohibitions, including provisions of the basin. 

The EIS will analyze potential water quality and groundwand will recommend BMPs and appropriate mitigation m
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

8 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

Post-construction-period features should be identified to control stormwater on-site or prevent non-point-source pollutants from entering and degrading surface water or groundwater. The foremost method of reducing impacts to watersheds from urban development is “Low Impact Development” (LID). 

The EIS will analyze potential water quality impacts and 

appropriate BMPs and mitigation measures. 

Vegetative areas should be used for stormwater management and infiltration on site, which may enhance the aesthetics of the property. These principals can be incorporated into the proposed project design. Natural drainage patterns should be maintained to the extent feasible. 

The EIS will analyze water quality and runoff and will recmitigation measures that include performance standards appropriate, to avoid or reduce any water quality impactproject. 

Designs that minimize impervious surface—such as permeable surface shoulders, directing runoff onto vegetated areas, and infiltrating runoff as close to the sources as possible—should be considered. 

See prior response. 

Both short-term (construction) and long-term (post-construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be identified. Appropriate mitigation, and monitoring of mitigation measures, should be discussed. 

The EIS will analyze construction and operation (post-cowater quality and will recommend BMPs and mitigation 

as appropriate, to avoid or reduce any water quality imp

project. 

Land Use 

The siting of the Las Vegas Passenger Station should be carefully considered. 

Three potential station locations in Las Vegas will be an

The EIS should explain the power and authority to grant the right-of-way to the proposed project. 

The EIS will include a description of approvals required 

and operation of the project. 

The decision to grant the same right-of-way corridor to the Steel-Wheel project (which was previously granted for another rail project) should be discussed further. Mitigation measures to alleviate the negative impacts of two rail lines on the same right-of-way corridor should be identified. 

The EIS will include descriptions of related or reasonablas part of the cumulative analysis. 

Several local residents oppose the project because of the proximity of the project to their homes, or to the potential impacts of noise on human health and property value. 

Land use compatibility, noise, and community impacts w

EIS. 

The EIS should list and analyze the environmental impacts of constructing stations, parking facilities, maintenance and storage facilities, power propagation, infrastructure and required road developments and modifications. 

The EIS will analyze the environmental effects of projec
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

9 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

The EIS should include measures to avoid or reduce environmental impacts associated with passenger stations and maintenance facilities (e.g., building multi-level parking structures rather than expansive singlelevel parking lots). 

The EIS will analyze components of the project, and if amitigation measures. 

The locations of proposed stations, parking facilities, and additional infrastructure should be identified, and associated planned and unplanned growth should be discussed. 

The EIS will include a description of components of the 

an evaluation of growth that may be induced by the proj

Expected land use changes associated with station locations should be described. The EIS should describe the environmental impacts of such land use changes, both indirect and cumulative. 

Indirect and cumulative effects of all project components 

EIS. 

The responsibilities for mitigating environmental impacts of projected land use changes should be assigned and identified. 

The EIS will describe mitigation measures and parties reimplementing those measures. 

Mitigation Measures 

Preparation of a Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan and a PostConstruction Air Quality Impact Mitigation Plan was requested. Mitigation measures should be identified and described in the EIS. 

The analysis will include consideration of a Construction Plan. The EIS will describe mitigation measures and paimplementing those measures.

The mitigation should be very specific in nature and should have adequate detail. All mitigation measures required for the project should be specifically described in the EIS. It is not sufficient to state that mitigation will be accomplished through permit acquired and that appropriate governmental agencies will be notified. The EIS should completely evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the project considering other existing and potential impacts. 

The EIS will describe specific mitigation measures and mperformance standards and parties responsible for implemeasures. The environmental document will include an

indirect, and cumulative impacts from all project-related reasonably foreseeable developments in the planning a

analysis will include a quantification of all impacts to res

Noise 

There were several comments regarding the impacts of noise adjacent to residential properties. 

Land use compatibility, noise, and community impacts w

EIS. 

Purpose and Need 

The EIS should clearly demonstrate the logic of choosing Victorville for the proposed Southern California hub, as opposed to other population centers with existing transit facilities. 

The purpose of the EIS is to study the applicant’s propoevaluate potential future connections/extensions in the canalysis. 

Data sources for ridership and population and economic growth projections should be disclosed. 

Data sources will be appropriately documented in the E
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

10 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

It should be demonstrated that the project can finance the frequency of service to support ridership. 

The operating plan and ridership forecasts for the projecthe EIS. 

The basis for cost assumptions should be disclosed. The availability of funds to cover cost overruns and fares to support both project construction and maintenance should be demonstrated. 

The operating plan and ridership forecasts for the projecthe EIS. 

If funding from private sources is insufficient, it should be disclosed whether the project will require public funding (State or Federal). 

The project is a privately proposed and funded venture ais proposed for the project. 

Scoping and Outreach

Several comments noted that better outreach efforts should have been made to notify city officials about the project in the cities along the project alignment. 

Notification of the Scoping Meeting was done in complia

and regulations. See Section 1.1 of this report. 

The Barstow scoping meeting was not held at a convenient time for one commentor. 

The scoping meetings were held at three locations and 

times to be convenient to a range of interested parties. 

The legal and factual basis was requested for FRAs’ NOI in the Federal Register. 

The FRA is the lead federal agency for the environment

and as such issued the NOI in the Federal Register.

Project information should be accessible via a website, including a larger map so that the alternative alignments can be more easily viewed. 

Information on accessing the project website was distribmeetings. 

The EIS should explain why a lead state agency was not identified for the project. 

Determination of the applicability of CEQA and need for 

still pending. 

Traffic and Transportation 

Contact should be made with city and State transportation organizations and authorities along the project alignment, to facilitate coordination with existing transportation planning and rail construction efforts. 

The FRA will consult with local and state transportation the EIS. 

The elements of the project that will require approval or funding by the FHWA or Federal Transit Administration should be identified. It should be demonstrated that these elements are included in a conforming transportation plan and transportation improvement system. 

The EIS will include a description of approvals required 

and operation of the project.

All transportation improvements providing access to the proposed facility from anticipated key rider groups in Southern California and population centers surrounding Las Vegas should be identified. This should include transit connections, the reduction of congestion, and increased bus service. 

The EIS will include a description and analysis of all req

the project including access to/from the proposed faciliti
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

11 

Scoping Comment Disposition of Comment 

Methods of increasing use of public transit to the proposed stations should be explored. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects such as added transit discussed in the cumulative analysis. 

A feeder bus system is needed to make the project work. See prior response. 

Ridership estimates should be more accurately calculated and may be lower than projected. 

The FRA is conducting a peer review of the Applicant’s 

ridership forecast. 

Subsequent to the completion of the Final EIR, Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway should arrange a meeting with RCES and the local highway authorities to discuss relevant safety issues of the public and private crossings, and to conduct diagnostic reviews as necessary. The modifications to the crossings require the Commission’s approval. 

No at-grade crossings are proposed and the project wouseparated. 

A commentor wished to know if a peer review of the ridership projections will be included. 

The FRA is conducting a peer review of the Applicant’s 

ridership forecast. 

Utilities 

Information should be evaluated and provided on utilities and service systems. Issues include wastewater treatment requirements; construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; construction of new stormwater drainage facilities; and a determination by the applicable wastewater treatment provider that adequate capacity exists to serve the project’s expected demand (in addition to the provider’s existing commitments). 

The EIS will analyze impacts to utilities, including waste

supply, and stormwater drainage facilities. 

Water Resources 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements should be integrated. 

The FRA will consult with the Army Corps of Engineers 

agencies in preparing the EIS. 

On-site alternatives to further avoid or minimize impacts to waters, by using spanned crossings or less damaging designs, should be explored. 

The EIS will evaluate impacts to waters and include appincluding avoidance measures. 

Water assessment should include an appropriate scope and enough detail of existing conditions to identify sensitive areas or aquatic systems with functions highly susceptible to change. 

See prior response. 
DesertXpress Scoping Summary Report 

E:\Projects\Consulting Services\2272 DesertXpress\Scoping Meeting\July 2006 Scoping Summary\Final Scoping Summary Report\Word Files\DXE Scoping Summary Report Comment Dispostion.doc 

12 
 	




 























Appendix 2 

Meeting Materials 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) welcomes you to the public scoping meeting

for the DesertXpress High Speed Train Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Federal

cooperating agencies for the EIS are the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The purpose of this scoping meeting is to:

• Initiate the environmental review process

• Present the project purpose and need

• Encourage public participation in determining the Scope

of the environmental review

The FRA, Circlepoint - the FRA’s environmental consultant, and DesertXpress

Enterprises - the private applicant, will make a brief presentation to orient you to the

project, the environmental review process, and your opportunities to stay involved and

informed. You are welcome to browse the information about the DesertXpress EIS and

Project set up around the room on:

• Purpose of the DesertXpress High Speed Train

• Project Benefits

• Environmental Issues to be Studied

• Environmental Process

• How to Stay Involved

• Project Area Map

• Alignment Maps with Aerial Views

You can provide your written comments today by filling out a comment form and placing it

in the comment box. Comments may also be mailed to the following address:

CirclePoint

attn: Mary Bean

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 305

Sacramento, CA 95814

Comments are due by August 15, 2006

Additional Project Information is available at the following website:

Federal Railroad Administration: www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1703

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this important planning effort.
CONTACT US Chief, Section of Environmental Analysis Victoria Rutson (202) 565-1545

Fax (202) 565-9000

RutsonV@stb.dot.gov

Management Assistant

Roslyn Anderson - (202) 565-1557

AndersonR@stb.dot.gov

Attorney-Adviser

Rini Ghosh - (202) 565-1539

GhoshR@stb.dot.gov

Christa Dean - (202) 565-1606

DeanC@stb.dot.gov

Environmental Protection Specialists

Kenneth Blodgett - (202) 565-1554

BlodgettK@stb.dot.gov

Troy Brady - (202) 565-1643

BradyT@stb.dot.gov

Catherine Glidden - (202) 565-1542 

GliddenC@stb.dot.gov

Phillis Johnson-Ball - (202) 565-1530

Johnson-BallP@stb.dot.gov

David Navecky - (202) 565-1593

NaveckyD@stb.dot.gov

Diana Wood - (202) 565-1552

WoodD@stb.dot.gov

 

Surface Transportation Board Section of Environmental Analy

sis

1925 K Street, NWSuite 500

Washington, DC 20423

____________ GENERAL

INFORMATION 

SURFACE

TRANSPORTATION

BOARD’S

 ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW PROCESS

NEW RAIL LINE

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECTS

__________
Who is the Surface Transportation Board?

The Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) was

created by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L.

No. 104-88, 109 Stat.803 (1995), on January 1, 1996,

to assume some (but not all) functions of the Interstate

Commerce Commission (“ICC”), particularly those

related to the regulation of freight railroads. The

Board is an independent federal regulatory agency

with jurisdiction over certain surface transportation

matters, including new rail line construction,

abandonments, and mergers.

When is Board Licensing Required for

New Rail Line Construction Projects?

The Board has jurisdiction over common carrier

railroad lines that are part of the interstate rail

network. A common carrier railroad line means that

the railroad has an obligation to provide rail service to

any and all shippers along that line upon request. 

Advance authorization from the Board is required

before constructing or operating a new or extended

common carrier railroad line.

Advance authorization from the Board is typically not

required to construct private track (i.e., track

constructed by a non-railroad company to exclusively

serve its own facility) or auxiliary tracks (e.g., may

include loading, unloading, storage or switching

track).

Section of Environmental Analysis and

What We Do.

The Section of Environmental Analysis (“SEA”) is the

office within the Board responsible for directing the

environmental review process, conducting

independent analysis of all environmental data, and

making environmental recommendations to the Board. 

Typically, as part of the environmental review process

for new rail line construction projects that come

before the Board, SEA completes an environmental

impact statement. The Board considers the entire

environmental record, including all public comments

submitted during the environmental review process,

before making a final decision.

SEA is composed of a highly trained staff of

administrative, legal and environmental specialists. 

SEA is headed by the Chief of the Section of

Environmental Analysis. 

The Board’s Environmental Rules 

The Board’s environmental rules can be found at 49

CFR 1105. The environmental rules are designed to

assure adequate consideration of environmental and

energy factors in the Board's decision making process.

The Board has adopted the former ICC environmental

regulations that govern the environmental review

process and outline procedures for preparing

environmental documents.

The Board’s environmental rules implement various

environmental statutes that include the National

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), National

Historic Preservation Act ,Endangered Species Act

and related laws.

These regulations enable applicants, interested parties,

and the Board's environmental staff to better identify

and more expeditiously resolve environmental

concerns. 

To help familiarize interested parties with the

environmental rules, SEA has set forth on the Board’s

website (www.stb.dot.gov) a series of questions and

answers that address key provisions of the Board’s

environmental rules. The environmental rules are also

available to review and download at the website.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. When is an Environmental Impact Statement

(“EIS”) prepared?

A. An EIS is normally prepared for most rail

construction proposals with the exception of the

construction of certain connecting track.

Q. When is an Environmental Assessment (“EA”)

prepared?

A. An EA is normally prepared for construction of

certain connecting track; abandonments;

discontinuance of service; an acquisition, lease or

operation which exceeds the thresholds specified in

1105.7(e) (4) or(5); a rulemaking, policy statement, or

legislative proposal that has the potential for significant

environmental impacts; and water carrier licensing

involving new operations or the transportation of

hazardous materials.

Q. Does SEA encourage public participation in the

environmental review process?

A. Yes, SEA ensures early agency consultation and

public participation in all stages of the environmental

review process. 

Q. What is the Third-Party Contracting Process? 

A. SEA uses third-party contractors to aid in preparing

environmental documentation necessary to comply

with the requirements of NEPA and related

environmental laws in Board proceedings.

Q. How do I find information on projects currently

before the Board? 

A. Visit the Board’s website at www.stb.dot.gov. The

Board maintains an electronic public docket and

information system designed to expand public access.

SM

The whole view.

CirclePoint

SM

The whole view.

CirclePoint

93

95

95

COLORADO R.

C

River

Lake

Mohave

LAKE

HAVASU

LAKE MEAD

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NM

tains NRA

Mojave National

Perserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Sequoia

NP

 Death Valley NM

K E R N

L O S A N G E L E S

O R A N G E

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

A R E

M O H A V E

L A P A Z

C L A R K

Lancaster

Barstow

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Victorville

Bullhead City

Lake Ha

Riverside

San Bernardino

Burbank

Las Vegas

Paradise

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Proposed Station Location

Conceptual Project Alignment

10

15

15

40

95

C L A R K

15

0

0 100KM

100 Miles

0

0 50KM

50 Miles

DESERTXPRESS

Project Location


The public is invited to provide comment on the Federal Railroad Administration’s DesertXpress High

Speed Train Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

 

  	 
 	  

 

 	
  
    
  
  

	

	 	
  	


	


 






   


 

 	 

 

   	 
 

 
 
       


     	    

     

      
 	       

  
 

  	      



          
  	
 






  ! 
" 

#%$ '&!(

#)*+

	,.-!/01

24345 67984:8!;4<=6>8=;45 ?34@AB8=C34:8D!;4E 5 E <=F

G+H I%JK

LMIONQP

R'KS4K
 	





Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Project

(idenified

By providing a safe, fast and reliable alternative to the private 

automobile, DesertXpress is projected to divert more than 25 

percent of car trips to rail, between Southern California and Las 

Vegas. This represents more than 3 million annual trips by car.

This privately financed transportation project would be 

completed without using limited tax dollars. 

DesertXpress may result in the following benefits:

• Reduce use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing our reliance on 

imported petroleum

• Reduce car, bus and airplane exhaust emissions

• Relieve overcrowded McCarran Airport

• Reduce traffic demand on I-15

• Reduce travel time and the stress created by highway 

congestion

• Reduce the risk of highway accidents and accident-related 

injuries and fatalities

• Avoid the need to widen more than 150 miles of 1–15

• Provide a potential future link to California’s proposed high 

speed rail system and the Metrolink system

• Provide jobs during construction and hundreds of long term 

jobs thereafter, generating economic activity equivalent to 

several times more than the direct investment in the project
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

MEETING PURPOS

• The purpose of the scoping meetings is to solicit public 

and agency comments regarding the scope of the 

environmental review of the proposed DesertXpress 

High Speed Train project

• The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is interested 

in comments regarding environmental concerns and 

potential environmental impacts of the project

• The FRA will consider all public comments and

suggestions in the preparation of the Environmental 

Impact Statement
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

project PURPOS

• The purpose of the DesertXpress project is to provide a new, 

privately financed, reliable mode of travel between Southern 

California (Victorville) and Las Vegas that is a convenient 

and efficient alternative to automobile travel on I-15 and 

air travel.

• The need for the project is directly related to the rapid 

increase in travel demand between Southern California and 

Las Vegas, coupled with the growth in population in the 

areas surrounding Victorville, Barstow, Primm and Las Vegas, 

which has resulted in substantial congestion along the I-15 

freeway between Victorville and Las Vegas. 
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

projec

• Construction of a fully grade-separated, dedicated double 

track passenger-only railroad along an approximately 200-mile 

corridor, from Victorville California to Las Vegas, NV.

• The project would include the construction of a passenger 

station, as well as maintenance, storage and operations facility in 

Victorville and one passenger station in Las Vegas. 

• The proposed Victorville Station would be located along the 

west side of I-15 between the two existing Stoddard Wells 

interchanges. The facilities directly associated with the Victorville 

station would occupy about 60 acres of land, and would have 

a parking capacity for up to 10,000 automobiles. Access to the 

Victorville station would be via the two existing Stoddard Wells 

Road Interchanges.

• The Maintenance, Storage and Operations facility is

proposed to be located in the City of Victorville on a site that

lies within the Victorville Valley Economic Development Area. The 

facility would require approximately 50 acres and would include 

a fueling station, train washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, 

and operations center. It is estimated that approximately 400 

employees would be based at this facility.

• The Las Vegas passenger station would be located at one of 

three possible locations: 1) near the south end of the Las Vegas 

Strip; 2) in the center section of the Strip; or 3) in downtown Las 

Vegas. A light maintenance, cleaning, and inspection facility 

would also be built near the Las Vegas station.
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Envi

tob

• Traffic at Proposed Station Locations

• Rail Ridership

• Biological Resources

• Noise & Vibration

• Air Quality

• Wetlands

• Historic, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources 

• Land Use

• Growth Inducement

• Environmental Justice

• Water Quality/Floodplains

• Hazardous Waste
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Enviro

July 2006: Notice of Intent & Public Scoping Meetings

Environmental Technical Studies

Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Circulate EIS & Hold Public Hearing

Identify Preferred Alternative

Release Final EIS

Agency Approvals
Federal Railroad

Administration

DESERTXPRESS HIGH SPEED TRAIN

LINKING VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

How to Sta

By signing in, you will be notified of future 

activities, including the availability of the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

You can submit your scoping comments tonight 

on comment sheets. Written scoping comments 

may be sent to the address listed below by 

August 15th, 2006.

• Mary Bean

CirclePoint

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 305

Sacramento, California 95814

• Visit FRA’s website anytime for up to date EIS information: 

www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1703
Appendix 4 

Federal Register 

Notice of Intent 

40176 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices 

1For purposes of the Financial & Operating 

Statistics (F&OS) program, passenger carriers are 

classified into the following two groups: (1) Class 

I carriers are those having average annual gross 

transportation operating revenues (including 

interstate and intrastate) of $5 million or more from 

passenger motor carrier operations after applying 

the revenue deflator formula in the Note of 49 CFR 

1420.3; (2) Class II passenger carriers are those 

having average annual gross transportation 

operating revenues (including interstate and 

intrastate) of less than $5 million from passenger 

motor carrier operations after applying the revenue 

deflator formula as shown in Note A of § 1420.3. 

Only Class I carriers of passengers are required to 

file Annual and Quarterly Report Form MP–1, but 

Class II passenger carriers must notify the Agency 

when there is a change in their classification or 

their revenues exceed the Class II limit. 

Administration (RITA), to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Information 

(FMCSA) (69 FR 51009, Aug. 17, 2004). 

FMCSA IC: OMB Control No. 2126–

0031. 

Form No.: MP–1. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Respondents: Class I Motor Carriers of 

Passengers. 

Number of Respondents: 26. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5 

hours. 

Expiration Date: August 31, 2006. 

Frequency: Quarterly and Annually. 

Total Annual Burden: 195 hours [130 

responses x 1.5 hour per response = 195 

hours]. 

Background 

The Annual and Quarterly Report of 

Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers is 

a mandated reporting requirement 

applicable to certain motor carriers of 

passengers. Motor carriers (both 

interstate and intrastate) subject to the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations are classified on the basis of 

their gross carrier operating revenues.1

Class I passenger motor carriers are 

required to file with the Agency motor 

carrier quarterly and annual reports 

(Form MP–1) providing financial and 

operating data (see 49 U.S.C. 14123). 

Under the financial and operating 

statistics (F&OS) program, FMCSA 

collects balance sheet and income 

statement data along with information 

on tonnage, mileage, employees, 

transportation equipment, and related 

data. The Agency uses this information 

to assess the health of the industry and 

identify industry changes that could 

affect national transportation policy. 

The data also indicate company 

financial stability and operational 

characteristics. The data and 

information collected are made publicly 

available and used by FMCSA to 

determine a passenger carrier’s 

compliance with the F&OS program 

requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 

1420. 

The F&OS reporting regulations were 

formerly administered by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission. They were 

transferred to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation on January 1, 1996, by 

Section 103 of the ICC Termination Act 

of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104–88, 109 

Stat. 803, December 29, 1995), now 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 14123. On 

September 30, 1998, the Secretary 

transferred the authority to administer 

the F&OS program to BTS (63 FR 

52192). Effective September 29, 2004, 

the Secretary transferred this program 

responsibility from BTS and redelegated 

it to FMCSA (69 FR 51009, Aug. 17, 

2004). FMCSA will publish a final rule 

that transfers and redesignates the F&OS 

program reporting requirements, 

currently at 49 CFR 1420, from BTS 

(now RITA) to FMCSA. 

We particularly request comments on: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FMCSA to 

meet its goal of reducing commercial 

motor vehicle crashes, and the 

usefulness of the information with 

respect to this goal; (2) the accuracy of 

the estimated IC burden; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents (including use of 

automated collection techniques and 

other information technologies) without 

reducing the quality of the collected 

information. The Agency will 

summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB 

approval of this IC. 

Issued on: July 7, 2006. 

David H. Hugel, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E6–11140 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

DesertXpress High Speed Train 

Between Victorville, CA and Las 

Vegas, NV 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The FRA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will be prepared for the proposed 

DesertXpress high-speed train project. 

The project includes passenger stations, 

a maintenance facility, and a new 

railroad line along the I–15 corridor 

between Victorville, California and Las 

Vegas, Nevada. FRA is issuing this 

notice to solicit public and agency input 

into the development of the scope of the 

EIS and to advise the public that 

outreach activities conducted by the 

FRA will be considered in the 

preparation of the EIS. Federal 

cooperating agencies for the EIS are the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB), the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). Alternatives to be 

evaluated and analyzed in the EIS 

include (1) take no action (No-Project or 

No-Build); and, (2) construction of a 

privately financed steel-wheel-on-steelrail high-speed train, including a 

proposed station in Victorville and a 

station in Las Vegas, and a maintenance 

facility in Victorville. Several 

alternative routings would be 

considered in the EIS. 

DATES: Three scoping meetings will be 

held during July of 2006. Scoping 

meetings will be advertised locally and 

are scheduled for the following cities on 

the dates indicated below: 

• July 25, 2006, Las Vegas Nevada at 

The White House, 3260 Joe Brown Drive 

time 5–8 pm. 

• July 26, 2006, Barstow, California at 

the Ramada Inn, 1571 E. Main Street, 

time 12—2 pm, and 

• July 26, 2006, Victorville, California 

at the San Bernardino County 

Fairgrounds Building 3, time 5–8 pm. 

Persons interested in providing 

comments on the scope of the EIS 

should do so by August 15, 2006. 

Comments can be sent to Mr. David 

Valenstein at the FRA address identified 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Valenstein, Environmental 

Program Manager, Office of Railroad 

Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

(Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590, 

(telephone 202/ 493–6368). Information 

and documents regarding the 

environmental review process will be 

made available through the FRA’s Web 

site: http://www.fra.dot.gov at Passenger 

Rail, Environment, Current Reviews, 

DesertXpress. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRA 

will prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

DesertXpress high-speed train project. 

The FRA is an operating administration 

of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and is primarily 

responsible for railroad safety 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices 40177 

regulation. Federal cooperating agencies 

for the EIS are the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB), the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The BLM has approval authority over 

the use of public lands under their 

control. The FHWA has jurisdiction 

over the use and/or modification of land 

within the I–15 right of way. The STB 

has exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 10501(b), over the 

construction, acquisition, operation and 

abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates 

and services and rail carrier 

consolidations and mergers. The 

construction and operation of the 

proposed DesertXpress high-speed train 

project is subject to STB’s approval 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901. To the 

extent appropriate, the EIS will address 

environmental concerns raised by 

federal, state and local agencies during 

the EIS process. 

Project Description: DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC (the project Applicant) 

proposes to construct and operate a 

privately financed interstate high-speed 

passenger train, with a proposed station 

in Victorville, California and a station in 

Las Vegas, Nevada, along a 200-mile 

corridor, within or adjacent to the I–15 

freeway for about 170 miles and 

adjacent to existing railroad lines for 

about 30 miles. 

The need for the project is directly 

related to the rapid increase in travel 

demand between Southern California 

and Las Vegas, coupled with the growth 

in population in the areas surrounding 

Victorville, Barstow, Primm and Las 

Vegas, which has resulted in substantial 

congestion along the I–15 freeway 

between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Ridership is estimated to be 4.1 million 

round trips in the first full year of 

service. To accommodate this level of 

ridership, trains would operate from 6 

a.m. to 10 p.m., daily, 365 days a year 

at 20 to 30 minute intervals during peak 

periods. 

The project would involve 

construction of a fully grade-separated, 

dedicated double track passenger-only 

railroad along an approximately 200- 

mile corridor, from Victorville 

California to Las Vegas, Nevada. Where 

the railroad alignment would be within 

the I–15 freeway corridor, continuous 

concrete truck barriers, as well as 

American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance of Way Association crash 

barriers at all supporting columns of 

bridges at freeway interchanges and 

overpasses would be provided. The 

project would include the construction 

of a passenger station, as well as 

maintenance, storage and operations 

facility in Victorville and one passenger 

station in Las Vegas. 

The proposed Victorville Station 

would be located along the west side of 

I–15 between the two existing Stoddard 

Wells interchanges. The facilities 

directly associated with the Victorville 

station would occupy about 60 acres of 

land, and would have a parking capacity 

for up to 10,000 automobiles. Access to 

the Victorville station would be via the 

two existing Stoddard Wells Road 

Interchanges. 

The Maintenance, Storage and 

Operations facility is proposed to be 

located in the City of Victorville on a 

site that lies within the Victorville 

Valley Economic Development Area. 

The facility would require 

approximately 50 acres and would 

include a fueling station, train washing 

facility, repair shop, parts storage, and 

operations center. It is estimated that 

approximately 400 employees would be 

based at this facility. 

The Las Vegas passenger station 

would be located at one of three 

possible locations: (1) Near the south 

end of the Las Vegas Strip; (2) in the 

center section of the Strip; or (3) in 

downtown Las Vegas. A light 

maintenance, cleaning, and inspection 

facility would also be built near the Las 

Vegas station. 

Alternatives: A No-Build alternative 

will be studied as the baseline for 

comparison with the proposed project. 

The No-Build Alternative represents the 

highway (I–15) and airport (McCarran) 

system physical characteristics and 

capacity as they exist at the time of the 

EIS (2006) with planned and funded 

improvements that will be in place at 

the time the project becomes 

operational. The project build 

alternatives have the same stations and 

maintenance facility. The railroad 

alignment between Victorville and Las 

Vegas can be divided into 6 distinct 

segments. Within the segments, several 

build alternatives are being considered 

as discussed below. 

Segment 1: Victorville to Lenwood 

(south of Barstow, California): 

Alternative A would depart the 

Victorville Station in a south-westerly 

direction before turning north and 

generally following the existing BNSF 

Railway Company (BNSF) railroad 

corridor and Route 66 to a point just 

south of Barstow. Alternative B would 

depart the Victorville Station and head 

north generally following the west side 

of the I–15 corridor. The alignment 

would diverge from the I–15 corridor 

near Hodge Road and head northerly to 

a point just south of Barstow near the 

exiting BNSF railroad corridor. 

Alternative B would be approximately 

6.8 miles shorter than Alternative A. 

Segment 2: Lenwood (South of 

Barstow) to Yermo, California: From a 

point south of Barstow, the build 

alternative alignment would head north 

for about five miles, cross the Mojave 

River and turn east through the City of 

Barstow. Through Barstow the 

alignment would utilize an existing, but 

abandoned, former Atchison Topeka & 

Santa Fe railroad corridor along the 

north side of the Mojave River, for 

approximately three miles before 

reaching the vicinity of the I–15 / Old 

Highway 58 interchange on the eastside 

of Barstow. From this point the 

alignment would head east along the 

north side of I–15 corridor through the 

town of Yermo to a point just east of the 

agricultural inspection station on the I–

15 Freeway. 

Segment 3: Yermo to Mountain Pass: 

There are two alignment alternatives in 

this segment: Alternative A entirely 

within the median of the I–15 freeway; 

and Alternative B along the north side 

of the I–15 corridor. 

Segment 4: Mountain Pass to Primm, 

Nevada: Alternative A would leave the 

I–15 freeway corridor and head south 

for approximately four miles before 

returning to the I–15 freeway corridor 

south of Primm. A portion of this 

alignment may encroach on the Mojave 

Desert Preserve, about one half mile 

south of the I–15 freeway. Alternative B 

would leave the I–15 freeway corridor 

and head north before returning to the 

I–15 freeway corridor south of Primm. A 

4,000-foot long tunnel would be 

necessary for Alternative B. 

Segment 5: Primm to Jean, Nevada: 

Alternative A would be entirely within 

the median of the I–15 freeway. 

Alternative B would continue along the 

east side of the I–15 freeway corridor 

between Primm and Jean. 

Segment 6: Jean to Las Vegas, Nevada: 

There are three alternative alignments in 

this segment. Alternative A would 

continue in the median of the I–15 

freeway into the Las Vegas passenger 

station. Alternative B would cross the I–

15 freeway corridor from the east side 

to the west side and continue along the 

west side of the I–15 freeway corridor 

into the Las Vegas passenger station. 

Alternative C would diverge to the east 

and generally follow the existing Union 

Pacific railroad corridor into the Las 

Vegas passenger station. To reach the 

downtown Las Vegas passenger station 

Alternative A would leave the median 

of the I–15 freeway corridor near Oakey 

Boulevard and diverge to the east to 

follow the Union Pacific railroad 

corridor to Bonneville Street. 

Alternatives B and C would follow the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
40178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices 

west side of the I–15 freeway corridor 

and cross at Oakey Boulevard to the east 

to join the Union Pacific railroad 

corridor to Bonneville Street. 

Scoping and Comments: FRA 

encourages broad participation in the 

EIS process during scoping and review 

of the resulting environmental 

documents. Comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested agencies 

and the public at large to insure the full 

range of issues related to the proposed 

action and all reasonable alternatives 

are addressed and all significant issues 

are identified. In particular, FRA is 

interested in determining whether there 

are areas of environmental concern 

where there might be the potential for 

identifiable significant impacts. FRA 

invites and welcomes public agencies, 

communities and members of the public 

to advise the FRA of their 

environmental concerns, and to 

comment on the scope and content of 

the environmental information 

regarding the proposed project. Persons 

interested in providing comments on 

the scope of the EIS should send them 

to Mr. David Valenstein at the FRA 

address identified above by August 15, 

2006. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 

2006. 

Mark E. Yachmetz, 

Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–11154 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2005–23227] 

Notice of Proposed Title VI Circular 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed revisions 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is revising and 

updating its Circular 4702.1, ‘‘Title VI 

Program Guidelines for Urban Mass 

Transit Administration Recipients.’’

FTA is issuing a proposed Title VI 

Circular and seeks input from interested 

parties on this document. After 

consideration of the comments, FTA 

will issue a second Federal Register 

notice responding to comments received 

and noting any changes made to the 

Circular as a result of comments 

received. The proposed Circular is 

available in Docket Number: 23227 at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 14, 2006. Late filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

FTA–05–23227 by any of the following 

methods: Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site; Fax: 202–493–2251; Mail: Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, PL–401, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; Hand 

Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Federal Transit 

Administration) and the docket number 

(FTA–05–23227). You should submit 

two copies of your comments if you 

submit them by mail. If you wish to 

receive confirmation that FTA received 

your comments, you must include a 

self-addressed, stamped postcard. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to the 

Department’s Docket Management 

System (DMS) website located at 

http://dms.dot.gov. This means that if 

your comment includes any personal 

identifying information, such 

information will be made available to 

users of DMS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Schneider, Office of Civil Rights, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, 20590, (202) 366–4018 or at 

David.Schneider@fta.dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The authority for FTA’s Title VI 

Circular derives from Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

2000d, et seq, which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin in programs and 

activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance. Specifically, Section 601 of 

this Title provides that ‘‘no person in 

the United States shall, on the ground 

of race, color, or national origin, be 

excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance,’’ (42 U.S.C 2000d). Section 

602 authorizes Federal agencies ‘‘to 

effectuate the provisions of [Section 

601] * * * by issuing rules, regulations 

or orders of general applicability,’’ (42 

U.S.C. 2000d-1). The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), in an exercise of 

this authority, promulgated regulations, 

contained in 49 CFR Part 21 that 

effectuate the provisions of Section 601 

and Title VI in general. 

FTA Circular 4702.1, titled ‘‘Title VI 

Program Guidelines for Urban Mass 

Transit Administration Recipients,’’

provides information on how FTA will 

enforce the Department of 

Transportation’s Title VI regulations at 

49 CFR Part 21. The Circular includes 

information, guidance, and instructions 

on the objectives of Title VI, information 

on specific grant programs covered by 

Title VI, a description of FTA data 

collection and reporting requirements, a 

summary of FTA Title VI compliance 

review procedures, a description of FTA 

process for implementing remedial and 

enforcement actions, information on 

how FTA will respond to Title VI 

complaints, and public information 

requirements. Circular 4702.1 was last 

updated on May 26, 1988. 

The proposed circular would make 

reference to and in some instances 

would summarize the text of other FTA 

guidance, regulations, and other 

documents. Many of the documents 

referred to will undergo revision during 

the life of the proposed circular. In all 

cases, the most current guidance 

document, regulation, etc will 

supercede any preceding information 

provided. FTA reserves the right to 

make page changes to proposed and 

final circulars regarding updates to 

other provisions, without subjecting the 

entire circular to public comment. 

Comments Related to Reporting 

Requirements: In addition to general 

comments concerning the draft Title VI 

Circular, FTA is seeking comments from 

its recipients and subrecipients 

concerning the costs and benefits 

associated with meeting the proposed 

Circular’s guidance. Recipients and 

subrecipients are encouraged to 

comment on the number of hours and/ 

or financial cost associated with 

implementing the Circular’s guidance as 

well as the extent to which following 

the guidance will assist the recipient 

and subrecipient in achieving its 

organizational objectives. 

I. Why is FTA revising its Title VI 

Circular? 

The DOT Title VI regulations and 

FTA Circular 4702.1 attempt to 

transform the broad antidiscrimination 

ideals set forth in Section 601 of Title 

VI into reality. In the 18 years since FTA 

last revised its Title VI Circular, much 

of FTA’s guidance has become outdated. 

Over those years, legislation, Executive 

Orders, and court cases have 

transformed transportation policy and 

affected Title VI rights and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Appendix 5 

Proofs of 

Publication 





 	



 

 



Appendix 7 

Comments 
























































DRAFT EIS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 

MATERIALS 

[FORTHCOMING FOR PUBLIC DRAFT EIS]